Interesting comment - “This isn’t just about teachers, it is about the entire public sector in Ontario and unlike the Catholic teachers who agreed to deal (not because they were compliant as Rad suggests, but because they could see they had received fair treatment in the past and could see the writing on the wall) the public teachers union, probably unbeknownst to teachers themselves were pawns to the likes of OPSEU who have contracts coming up and wanted others unions to weaken the resolve of the province leading to their talks. That is why Smokey Thomas (head of OPSEU) was active in this dispute. Watch how extensively this is used in the upcoming showdowns and how it is twisted and manipulated to fool the public, similar to the union lie that this was simply about 115.”

Unto the OPSEU web site - Where one would find hints of what the public sector unions have in store for the Ontario residents.
http://www.opseu.org/strongertogether/video.htm

Stronger together: Solidarity the key in 2013
“.....“The year ahead will be an intense one for every working person in Ontario,” says OPSEU President Warren (Smokey) Thomas. “Our jobs will be under attack, and so will the public services we all depend on. With important rounds of bargaining under way and a provincial election looming, this year is one in which we can never forget that we are stronger together.”

Since when did the public sector unions give a toss about the private sector and loss of jobs? Where are the public sector unions voicing outloud publicly the public who has been denied public services because they did not fit the criteria. Or the long waiting lines to access education or health services? No they remain silent, in fear of losing their jobs. All the public sector unions care about is good solid jobs, high pay for less hours. and to be able to used the public they served, to manipulate and hold the pubic hostage as quality services takes a hit, because the union contract agreement stipulates the list of job responsibilities of what they will do and not do. for their pay.

In the public education system, of what the teachers’ will not do is becoming the longer list of what they will do.

Malkin, some merit to what you say..but keep in mind that the Harris government and his shall-we-say inept education ministers did have to make some concessions in the way of teacher workloads, prep time, mandatory extracurriculars and on-call duty as examples. They finally understood that all of the nonsense and chaos that Bill160 created during ‘97 and ‘98 forced this government to negotiate amicably with the locals to de-escalate the uproar. For what it’s worth, give the Liberals their due. Present moment notwithstanding, they learned from the Harris government mistakes about what fair negotiations entails.

Judging from the way McGuinty has treated people who have no powerful unions to protect them, i.e.:  pharmacists and farmers to name two, I don’t think that McGuinty cares at all about any factor of our society.  The teachers’ unions he bought along with other psu’s in order to get into power.  When the going got tough and he was facing hard questions, he simply walked away.  All of this to me points to a person who is simply out for himself.  He has a fat pension, and thanks to him so does his wife, who’s a teacher. 
In the meantime, in Ontario manufacturing, profit margins are so narrow for some co’s that they’re losing $$.  Did he lower taxes?  No.  He reneged.  If more manufacturing in Ontario goes under, and of course the deficit/debt will therefore climb, will the psu’s say, ‘oh we should do our share by taking cuts, get down to work and stop disrupting the lives of Ontarians’?  I’d be very surprised.

It’s All A Normal Mating Dance !

Yes, governments who play nice with teacher unions till the well runs dry — then tough decisions need to be made, well, the inevitable happens — government and especially senior politicians who’ve been playing footsie all along — learn some radical lessons about teacher unions.

Even now, with a two-year contract imposed, we hear that Bill 115 will be rescinded because it’s too much of a “lightning rod” for continuing disruptions.  This olive branch is meant to bring back some sanity to the extra curricular boycott by teachers. 

Look at the photo accompanying this editorial from SQE — two tigers in apparent threatening stance.  Any biologist will tell you this shot illustrates just one part of the tiger mating ceremony!

But, it might illustrate the reality of give-and-take in yet another “face-off” between public teacher unions and its government.  The photo does not, as the editorial tries, indicate that a tiger, face-to-face with a human (McGuinty) would result in some real damage.

Unfortunately, people’s feelings are hurt with likely personal and political damage in these seeming betrayals.  But that’s par for the course with confrontations with teacher unions. The song-and-dance. 

What BOTH sides gain through all this is “business as usual”.  With collateral damage to the consumer — the students and parents — of course, they’re incidental!

The game goes on.  What needs doing is for the government to get out of the business of producing education altogether, which obviously requires all the baggage — unionized workers, expensive middle-men (school boards), etc.

If there is need for taxpayer assistance for public education to happen, let the money follow the recipient via vouchers, tax credits, or other such choice mechanism. 

Viola!  No more predictable insurrections from “oppressed” government workers! 

Steve - way back when McGuinty was leading the opposition he was making noises about moving to provincial bargaining.

There should have been no surprise from the teacher unions at all re: his continued move to do so.

The teachers unions and this gov’t got in bed together because each was mutually helpful to the other…..each used the other to their advantage.

From my perspective I see little learning happening from the Harris mistakes. What I DO see are plenty of mirror images.

There are options to teachers doing extra-curriculars. Bottom line is that each individual teacher needs to decide for his or her self whether to lead the “extras”.

Here’s a choice option happening in Ottawa…and why not? I see no problem with this at all.

Actually I see more of it on the horizon if the unions demand that teachers withdraw extras.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/entertainment/play+recess+programs+rise+Ottawa+schools/7673362/story.html

Steve, to say that under Harris the education ministers were ‘limited’ puts you in the category of listening only to your union.  These ministers did wht the public wanted.  It’s reprehensible that before Harris all city-wide and provincial tests were taken away, and report cards only reflected feel-good attitudes.  Personally, if I hadn’t caught on to the above, my daughter would have been labelled learning disabled in math, since the math curricula (I found out) hadn’t been taught for over three grades in public school.  What kind of an education is that? 
During the Harris years, as far as I could see, the disruption was caused by angry staff because the education ministers were implementing the changes that parents and the public wanted.  Parents were very happy to see testing brought in.  Ever since it was brought in, Steve, the teachers unions have been trying to get rid it.  The unions did get their (shall I say former) bed partner, McGuinty to dumb the testing down though. 
So, I guess it’s which side of the payck you’re on: whether or not you listen to anyone but your union; and how much accountability you don’t want when doing your job that will decide how you evaluate former ed ministers Johnson and whatshisname

“Here’s a choice option happening in Ottawa…and why not? I see no problem with this at all.
Actually I see more of it on the horizon if the unions demand that teachers withdraw extras.”

Actually Chuck - I see lots of things wrong with it, ethically wrong but more importantly, it provides lots of opportunities between the education unions and school boards to reduced the basic education a child receives to the bones. At the same maintaining the union and the school board stances on so-called equality for one and all and social justice.

The statement below, I am not in agreement.
” “I’m not a fan of stealth privatization of the school system by creating a two-tier system for those who can afford to pay. I find it really sad. Schools are in a fantastic position to provide access to these fabulous programs that kids from lower incomes can’t necessarily access.”

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/play+recess+programs+rise+Ottawa+schools/7673362/story.html#ixzz2H2rrupho 

It is not stealth privatization as the teachers’ union cite in their stances, but an inevitable outcome, when vacuums developed by teachers’ unions stances on no more supervision, we have a right to our breaks, and of course their insistence all activities outside of instruction is voluntary. The school boards further enhances the vacuums by their crazy stances on so-called healthy food policies, no balls allowed in the playground, to the balanced day schedule. Toss in the steady cuts that take place on supplies, classroom material and the many other cuts of a thousand kinds - private businesses will step in to filled in the void.

I just think the parents are pretty nutty to pay the prices and they be better off joining the YMCA. A whole lot cheaper and more value for the dollar.

One mother states, ” Paid programs might also provide a haven for kids who aren’t included in games at recess or are less physically skilled, said parent Lori Camilucci, who has two children at Hopewell School. “The schoolyard can be a horrible place if you’re one of those kids who dreads recess.”

That statement says it all - One of the negative outcomes of teachers’ unions and their collective agreements. No more supervision, and ergo kids are left on their own where the majority of bullying takes place, that is not considered bullying by the administration. At least does not meet the criteria defined by the bullying policies built on the tenets of the so called social justice and equity policies. Paid supervision or volunteer supervision by parents hasn’t done a thing.

Far cry from when I was young. Teachers out in full force, and some of them threw a mean ball, and could do Double-Dutch skipping. Someday, the teachers got as dirty as the kids did, sliding to get to home. All done without all that safety equipment, but the teachers had common sense. Something that is lacking.

A comment from a principal defending the private programs - ”  So, for example, it’s no different than if a parent checks a child out of school at recess and brings him across the street to attend a piano lesson, or brings the child to a Cub Scout meeting held at school in the evening.”

Last time I check, private piano lessons are at least 50 minutes long. Last time I check, principals are none too please when parents do pulled out their children during the school day for private lessons of any kind. More so, for the private tutoring kind, for stuff that the public education system no longer does.

I can see more private concerns filling in the vacuum on duties and services that the public education system will no longer do. But I can see a whole raft of legal issues of parents inserting their constitutional rights and demands of choice other than the assigned school.

The teachers’ unions along with the high priced help of school boards will pay dearly, for not providing a quality education for one and all, within reasonable costs. Instead, the teachers’ unions and the high priced help of the school boards want all the education dollars to lined their pockets by stripping the education quality to bare bones, and have the students pay for the bells and whistles

Another principal - ““If you are providing the argument that this is a school, and it’s almost sacred that a (private) company not come in here and offer something and ask us for money, well that argument doesn’t wash. Then take out the Lunch Lady, take out your pizza days, take out your sub days, all those things are running in schools.”

LOL - It is just a matter of time for choice to show up in 2013 in unexpected forms. And more so for provinces like Ontario and BC.

Look for the Liberals to lose the next election due to this and other unpopular austerity policies.

Mike Harris slashed $16 billion in corporate taxes. This is the reason we have a deficit.

Reply @ Nancy:
Your statement “No more supervision, and ergo kids are left on their own..” is NOT accurate.  Teachers ARE required to do supervision duty before school, during lunch breaks while students are eating, during recesses when students are playing outside, and after school (i.e., bus duty).  Supervision Duty is not a ‘volunteer activity’.  It is part of our job requirements and most of us are quite happy to do it!  Please review your messages to ensure you are providing ACCURATE information when trying to sway people towards your beliefs about ‘charter schools’.  Posting your sources for your ‘facts’ would be really helpful as well.  One of the things we Teachers do is embed ‘Critical Thinking Skills’ throughout our lessons… providing your sources will be an excellent tool to use to encourage your readers’ Critical Thinking.  There are some other inaccuracies and over-generalizations within your posts, but this was the one that caused me to stop reading and respond ASAP, before some unknowing person read it and believed it to be true.  Rest assured, Dear Public (and Parents), children are NOT being left outside during recess ‘unsupervised’.  Teachers ARE on duty,

Nancy is accurate, Trace—at least at some boards…
There was a death of a child at a school (I know of two in my area).  The knee-jerk reaction was for the superintendents to tell the teachers and principals to supervise the children.  The teachers said that they didn’t have time, so outside help had to be hired.  I still see the extra personnel on playgrounds during recess.  They look like crossing guards because they wear the same type of top over their clothing. 
Prior to these terrible tragedies, I remember mothers complaining that when they walked their little ones to school, that there was never a teacher outside supervising in the a.m.  When McGuinty wanted to have our state-run ed system take in even younger students, I thought about safety, along with what the benefit for the children would be.  I hope the principals at all schools enforces proper supervision, but at times it can be hard telling someone who’s in a very strong union to do their jobs.
Joe, by criticizing Mike Harris for the debt/deficit that your former teachers union pal, Dalton McGuinty has got our once prosperous province into is getting a bit absurd—don’t you think?  Firstly, McGuinty has been in power for 10+ years, and secondly, while McGuinty has been in power, Ontario had the highest corporate taxes in N.A.  Your former pal didn’t want to touch corporate taxes because, of course corporations, along with ordinary citizens, were paying inflated wages and benefits that McGuinty had given your teachers and other psu’s and gov’t burearcrats.  He finally had to begin cutting corporate taxes because Ontario was becoming more and more uncompetetive.  McGuinty had also promised to continue cutting corporate taxes, which he has now reneged on.  In manufacturing, profit margins are so narrow right now, that overhead is low and some companies are losing money.  Simply put, we can’t afford to continue down this path that McGuinmty has struck, and before we get back in the black, we’ll see more manufacturing companies go bankrupt; yet the public sector will not want to budge.  manufacturing doesn’t demonstrate like the public sector unions:  they either move or go bankrupt.  Where will the money come from to provide these unsustainable pensions that we’re bailing out, salaries and benefits?  How long will the public sector refust to co-operate?

To add to what Bev had stated, as a parent for over 35 years I have observed, experienced the declining education quality inside the classroom and outside in the playgrounds. As the education stakeholders, including the union gained political/social capital using their influence and power to extract the best possible working conditions at the expense of education quality to served their best interests and private agendas.

What would happen if the school board/government imposed 30 minutes more of supervisory time for each classroom teacher? All hell would break out, how dare them, and out comes the hallmark excuses of union breaking, threats of law suits, and right down to the undemocratic comments. Trace omits the supervisory minutes, are part and parcel of the salary package, where if 30 minutes were to be imposed unto the teachers, the union heads will make sure it be part of the increasing raises of salaries. The cost to education salaries would be more than the cost of private concerns entering the school.

Ergo, teachers’ unions play a big role in reducing education quality within the public education system. The school board staff along with administration of schools, play the supporting roles of arranging education policies and practices that honours and respects the teachers’ contract agreements at the expense of education quality and students’ education.

Trace, probably reacted to my statement - ” That statement says it all - One of the negative outcomes of teachers’ unions and their collective agreements. No more supervision, and ergo kids are left on their own where the majority of bullying takes place, that is not considered bullying by the administration. At least does not meet the criteria defined by the bullying policies built on the tenets of the so called social justice and equity policies. Paid supervision or volunteer supervision by parents hasn’t done a thing.”

Then Trace proceeded to present the typical talking points of teachers’ unions, based on their brand of social justice ideology and Critical Thinking Skills. Where the victim is made to apologized to the bully for essentially being different, and upsetting the sensibilities of the bully is one such scenario that is typical.  Trace, ought to meet my 17 year old who would do a fine job in deconstructing the ideologies behind the critical thinking skills constructs embedded in the current instruction and curriculum offerings as it relates to her nightmare experiences of obtaining an education, within a school environment that caters to the union contract agreements as the guide to provide and delivered education services to the students.

I never mentioned charter schools, and to which I simply provided a break down of reasons given, that give rise to questioning the reasons of the stakeholders. Upon further reflection, (another term that is overused by the adults of the public education system),  having private providers to provide the extras at recess and lunch time might not be such a bad idea. I can see the gap opening up for the private tutors and other private providers entering the schools to provide the therapies and academic tutoring for children who struggled in learning both outside and inside the inclusive classroom.

The Moore ruling, will only enhance the movement of private tutors and other private concerns entering the schools, filling in the vacuum that has been left for students who have learning struggles, who have had their learning needs displaced by the education stakeholders, and their self-serving agendas of looking out for their best interests over the priority of education quality.

As for teachers being on duty, how does that squared with the many news articles across Canada, on the web, in social media and the slate of law suits initiated by parents, against the public education system. Quite a few of them, on bullying that started in the playgrounds of public schools.

I stand by my observations, given the overwhelming evidence of the final student outcomes in the data streams. Can the same thing be said about the education stakeholders of self-serving interests and education quality based on ideologies?

Equality doesn’t mean Justice is a beautiful illustration. On the left side, is what the current public education stands for. On the right side, is what the education stakeholders, and more so with the teachers’ unions are fighting tooth and nail. Why it really surprised me to read of private providers in the Ottawa public education system. The principals are still offering the status-quo of equitable education opportunities based on equal portions, without justice.
http://imgur.com/WJxPj 

It is strange that the author of this post, President of the “Society for Quality Education”—who is described on the website as a published author and member of the editorial board of the “Journal of School Choice”—shows so little evidence of having read any of the teachers’ or union leaders’ own comments in the extensive press coverage of this dispute.  The author opens by claiming “All the unions want is more money and it will never be enough”... but teachers have repeatedly stated that their issue with Bill 115 and its resulting contract is precisely NOT the money. 

Just yesterday, Jan 4, ETFO President Sam Hammond wrote the following: “ETFO members never said they were opposed to a salary freeze in the 2012-13 and 2013-14 school years. …The government has told the public that they have simply put a hold on salary increases during the term of the contract. In truth, the government has done much more; they have confiscated all unused sick days and paid some teachers less than 10 percent of the value of the seized days; they have frozen retirement gratuities; they have imposed an inferior sick leave process; and, they have delayed grid movement. These are all freely bargained components of the compensation for teachers embedded in collective agreements. In addition, they have forced a one and a half percent salary cut by requiring three unpaid leave days.”

The real issue here for teachers is that Minister Broten and the Liberal government have trampled on teachers’ collective bargaining rights.  What’s the matter with this?  Well, for one thing it’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That’s what the BC Supreme Court found on April 13, 2011, when a similar move by the BC government was ruled unconstitutional and invalid, because it interfered in bargaining rights and infringed on freedom of association guaranteed under the Charter of Rights.

What else is wrong with it? Well, a short excerpt of the judge’s well-reasoned and thoroughly researched ruling in that case states “The historical evolution of collective bargaining as a protected right recognizes that there is a psychological benefit to workers to be able to collectively bargain over their working conditions, a benefit that goes beyond the economic benefits they might obtain.”  In other words, teachers are stakeholders, on the front lines of education, and it’s important for them to feel they have a voice in the decisions affecting not just their salaries but also their working conditions.  Every good teacher knows this to be true, and it’s the same for kids: that’s why we have “class community” meetings, and create our “Rules for a Happy Classroom” collaboratively WITH our students, instead of just telling them, “Here are the rules. Follow them, or else.”  To refuse children or their teachers a voice in the things that concern them is to disrespect them and to damage their trust and goodwill. 

Another important reason to involve teachers in collective bargaining is that teachers know better and care more about the kids in front of them – the “clients” of our educational system – than do principals, superintendents, school trustees, Board negotiators and Ministry bureaucrats.  Teachers are positioned better than anyone else at the decision-making table to speak out not just for their own interests but for the interests of their students.  When compromises need to be made, teachers know what it means to put students first.  We do it every day.  The proof that collective bargaining has worked is not to be found our salary grid or our dental plan, but in the high quality of education in Ontario.

Ms. Dare would serve the “Society for Quality Education” better by acquainting herself with the facts before she makes pronouncements like this against teachers and their unions.

Isn’t it delicious when the education stakeholders go on the defensive. Made even more ironic in the news of the Toronto Star in today’a edition.

“Over the last two weeks, Hazel’s trades council sent two stiffly-worded letters to education minister Laurel Broten asking her to step in and preserve its old contract with Toronto’s public school board.

The solution put forward in the letters mirrors what Broten imposed on the Toronto District School Board on Thursday.”

Toronto parents can look forward to more $143 single screws to installed a pencil sharpener and $3000 electrical wall outlets. Perhaps the 900-strong Maintenance and Construction Skilled Trades Council can offered sale prices from time to time, to help ease the hardship of the newly acquired label, of Toronto being the most expensive city to live in Canada. After all, living with the high price help of unionized public sector presents a real hardship for the downtrodden teachers and teachers’ union headquarters trying to find creative ways of extracting money out of the taxpayers’ purse - the golden egg that never stops giving and somehow maintained the status-quo in education quality.with less and less dollars.Most of education funding is being spent on the high priced salaries of unions.

Rather odd, to hear the same complaint in the Supreme Court of Canada in March of 2012, where the Ontario and BC education heavyweights, it would cost far too much, to expect every student to reach average and above reading levels. They go on to say that that 50 % of all students will never reach average levels of reading. The Supreme Court Justices, all nine of them did not buy it, and call it discrimination. Ergo, ruled in the favour of the Moores and what education should be - equality of outcomes.

John, comes in as a member of the union, and an important stakeholder holding political and social capital slamming SQE for not looking into the facts of the union. I suspect SQE already has, and found it lacking in the same way as the Supreme Court of Canada did concerning the Moore case.

To which John’s statement alluring to why teachers are important and that they are - ”  In other words, teachers are stakeholders, on the front lines of education, and it’s important for them to feel they have a voice in the decisions affecting not just their salaries but also their working conditions.  Every good teacher knows this to be true, and it’s the same for kids: that’s why we have “class community” meetings, and create our “Rules for a Happy Classroom” collaboratively WITH our students, instead of just telling them, “Here are the rules. Follow them, or else.”  To refuse children or their teachers a voice in the things that concern them is to disrespect them and to damage their trust and goodwill. “

Funny thing John, the education stakeholders should be looking in the mirror, and see for yourselves the dismal future outcomes of students. The kind of negative outcomes that the Supreme Court of Canada took the BC education system to task in the historical ruling of November 9, 2012.

John, I think you drank the koolaid.

Why Are Teacher Unions So Defensive?

In the School Wars (2013) we are expecting a lot more co-ordinated and well-developed rationalizations for the bad behaviors of the teacher unions. Since these defenses are not only increasing, but are increasingly becoming more sophisticated, we can only deduce that public opinion is hurting teacher unions’ self-image.

This John Baumann piece certainly seems rather formal and official. 

When some fed-up person, or a parent group like SQE, makes a sweeping comment like “All the unions want is more money” that just might be a knee-jerk reaction. That just MAY BE the perception left in people’s minds from the constant teacher union badgering about “underfunding”, “underfunding”.  You reap what you sow!

During this last teacher union campaign in Ontario we’ve heard a lot about the generous payouts to teachers in the last decade.  Some blame the province’s current economic plight on just such past handouts.  Up until 2009 Ontario was the only province never to have had equalization payments but is now a “have not” province, warranting equalization payments from the federal government.

This Baumann statement delves into the psychological need for teachers to be involved in collective bargaining for salaries and working conditions — they should have a voice in the decisions that affect them.  Now, isn’t that ironic?  Teacher unions are notorious for not wanting parents involved in choices for their children.  THAT is disrespect!

And the matter of Parent Progress Report Cards being an item for job action by the unions is a disgrace and a direct undermining of parental duty to monitor their child’s progress.

The biggest offense I take from this patronizing statement is that we should be grateful to the teacher unions for standing up “for the interests of their students”, “the ‘client’” !

Now, let’s be fully informed.  Students are NOT the clients of the public education system.  The parents who enroll their children into schools are the clients, the customer, the consumer. 

This appropriation of children and the usurping of parent rights by teacher unions is not taken lightly.

John, I appreciate your restraint in responding to my posting. I sense it took huge self control.

In this case, you and I are looking at the same facts but interpreting them differently.

With regard to the question of whether or not it’s about money for the unions, it still looks to me like money. You mention: ” they have confiscated all unused sick days and paid some teachers less than 10 percent of the value of the seized days; they have frozen retirement gratuities; they have imposed an inferior sick leave process; and, they have delayed grid movement. These are all freely bargained components of the compensation for teachers embedded in collective agreements. In addition, they have forced a one and a half percent salary cut by requiring three unpaid leave days.” These measures all have fiscal consequences.

Of course, the teachers’ unions are hardly going to say it’s all about money, as this would weaken their bargaining position. Instead, public sector unions always claim that their actions are in the public interest in some way. The reality is that the teachers’ unions take their policy positions on the basis of their interests and then come up with whatever arguments they can find to advance these interests. Their arguments are carefully chosen with an eye to what they think is most likely to convince others to align with them. In this case, the teachers’ unions have seized what they claim is the anti-democratic nature of the government’s legislation. But this is standard operating procedure. Cherchez l’argent.

You offer as proof positive that collective bargaining has been a force for good in Ontario - namely, “the high quality of education” in the province. Here is another example of same facts, different interpretation. As it happens, I do not accept this proof. And I would be happy to engage on this issue as well, if you would be interested.

Thanks for writing.

John,may I ask a question?

If what you state is true and I agree with Bev,you drank the kool aid,why did the Catholic School Boards find a resolution with the MOE,they negotiated and struck a deal without harming the education of all 2012-2013 teachers.

Another point,yes the teachers know a great deal about the quality of education and in private settings
when assured they will not be divulged many discuss the weak foundational skills of K-3 education which overwhelms them in grade 4 and up when trying to deliver the curriculum.
The emphasis on critical thinking skills,the absolute refusal of deferring to the research on Reading that is empirical versus OISE influenced propaganda all harm students and if you`ve never met students who struggle to read,spell and write in grade 4,5 and 6 etc..they are lined up in their pediatrician`s offices and mental health centres waiting for prescriptions to assuage their anxiety or being diagnosed with ADD…IF YOU CAN`T READ ,life at school is hell-and the level reading and guided reading stuff is truly ridiculous…read Children of the Code website is not an encouraged read by the Literacy Secretariat?

Ask employers if students can parse a sentence upon graduation,ask them if they can spell when writing e mails to customers and choose the wrong word on spell check skewing the communication,ask first year professors at University what they see is so many of their students?
Here comes Doug,Joe-not all the students-many-up to 40 percent and at inner city schools like TDSB up to 50%.
Don`t drink the kool aid quite so quickly.

That should have been 2012-2013 students.

““Here’s a choice option happening in Ottawa…and why not? I see no problem with this at all.
Actually I see more of it on the horizon if the unions demand that teachers withdraw extras.”

Actually Chuck - I see lots of things wrong with it, ethically wrong but more importantly, it provides lots of opportunities between the education unions and school boards to reduced the basic education a child receives to the bones. At the same maintaining the union and the school board stances on so-called equality for one and all and social justice.”

I find it passing strange that you Nancy of all people would question the choices that other parents may want.

If this Ottawa school community can offer of alternative programs during the course of a day, then leave them alone. Just because you wouldn’t register your kids for it doesn’t mean that other parents wouldn’t like something like that?

You talk a good game on the choice issue but, you seem to like to compartmentalize those choice and even try to make them for parents.

John - I think what that how you’ve responded to Malkin is typical from an optics perspective. It’s what we’ve become used to in Ontario. Hammond says one thing in public, but according to a Star column on December 22nd, while Hammond’s snowing us with the “it’s not about money” mantra, what we know that in high-level discussions last month that “he demanded the full restorations of the seniority grid with flexibility to find savings, including class sizes, a 2% raise to bring EFTO mambers to parity with OSSTF teachers, 10 days sick leave that can be banked and scrapping the three presrcibed mandatory unpaid days.” If that’s not all about the money, I don’t know what is.

“read Children of the Code website is not an encouraged read by the Literacy Secretariat?”

Thanks Joanne, I am going to used my writing skills, to write to the Literacy Secretariat. A little voice from the past, whispered words stated to me when I was a teen trying to get out of detention. I stated my case in writing, while waiting to hear the verdict from the principal. It did not look good, while the vice-principal was snickering in the background. The verdict came down in my favour, for myself and the girl beside me, compared to the 12 other girls or so who all received after school detentions. A black eye figuratively speaking for the vice-principal, and walking out of the principal’s office with the biggest smile was priceless to see the expression of the vice-principal’s face.

What were the words from the past? “The little engine that everybody thought could never write.”
In another year, I soon learned the meaning of the words, but at that moment I did not questioned it because my aim was not to get after-school detentions. Mission accomplished.

What really got to me - ” if you`ve never met students who struggle to read,spell and write in grade 4,5 and 6 etc..they are lined up in their pediatrician`s offices and mental health centres waiting for prescriptions to assuage their anxiety or being diagnosed with ADD…IF YOU CAN`T READ ,life at school is hell-and the level reading and guided reading stuff is truly ridiculous…”

So very true, and more so today. I know of 5 classmates of my child’s on some type of medication for anxiety. And not on it, when summer vacation arrives. What do the 5 classmates share? Weaknesses in the core fundamentals of the 3 Rs, and an iffy future in post-secondary. Plus trying to maintain a decent average in their final year of high school. All so needless angst to imposed on students at the high school level. Life would have been so much better if the public education system took the time to ensure all students reaches an average or above levels in the 3 Rs.

I am planning to used my writing skills built by teachers of the 1960s era, who always thought all their students should have average to above writing skills. Ergo, I ended up with grammar, spelling and other work sheets dealing with the mechanics of writing on a regular basis, and throughout the summer from grade 1 to grade 8. It helps to had a mother who was a stickler for grammar, and was a mean speller. No nightmare scenes at my home, but adults who rolled up their sleeves. Too many parents are having nightmare scenes at home with their children relating to the education being received at the school. It is so obvious, the public education system and its stakeholders are not listening nor have their eye on the research based on science of learning.

Chuck, I am not questioning the choices of parents who decided to opt for the privately run recess programs. I just think it is foolish to spend what is big dollars for an once a week program, when there is less expensive quality alternatives at the local YMCA or the boys and girls club or the local community centre in urban centres.

In the letters to the Toronto Star entitled Lack of Respect for Teachers
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters/article/1310781—lack-of-respect-for-teachers

The article called “Ontario teachers shouldn’t hold kids hostage: Editorial.”
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/1310265—ontario-teachers-shouldn-t-hold-kids-hostage-editorial

If it isn’t about the money, than why is the comment section of the news articles all about the money.

On the first page of the comments - “While not holding a grudge against the students, instead of volunteering my time I will be assisting students with their math homework after school hours for a fee. This allows me to both continue assisting students and getting back some of the money I have personally lost by the passing of Bill 115.”

I wonder which students will end up having the better deal? The students paying for the after-school tutoring conducted by the teacher or the students who did not or could not take advantage of the after school tutoring fee paying service?

The Asian countries are having a difficult time sorting out the private tutoring businesses, the teachers who are conducting the tutoring, and other conflict of interests within the public education system structure. Last time I check, Asian parents are none too please of the changes that favours the public education system, and pocketing the loose change of the Asian parents.

So will the teachers enter the private tutoring realm, using the public school facilities as their place of business to offer the extra-curricular activities for a fee, to replace the monies lost as it has been claimed by the unions, with the passing of Bill 115?

Those teachers should not collect private tutoring money because many times they don`t bring a solution to the student.
Teachers are trained as generalists.

Bill 115 did not create financial loss,the refusal to bargain fairly created the loss.They chose hostage taking versus negotiation.

“Chuck, I am not questioning the choices of parents who decided to opt for the privately run recess programs. I just think it is foolish to spend what is big dollars for an once a week program, when there is less expensive quality alternatives at the local YMCA or the boys and girls club or the local community centre in urban centres.”

Nancy - I’m giving the benefit of the doubt to parents in this case. I’m pretty sure they’re aware of what other options they have. In my area the YMCA is not the less expensive option, and those others are seasonal and taken advantage of just as equally.

There’s room for them all if that’s what individual schools decide.

I don’t know why you’re fighting me on the “it’s not about money” issue.  I’m not the one swimming against the fishes in this instance. Oh, and surprise! I read the Star
pieces earlier today. I notice that you’ve nicely cherry-picked the comment. That one comment among them all is interesting.

““While not holding a grudge against the students, instead of volunteering my time I will be assisting students with their math homework after school hours for a fee. This allows me to both continue assisting students and getting back some of the money I have personally lost by the passing of Bill 115.”

I wonder which students will end up having the better deal? The students paying for the after-school tutoring conducted by the teacher or the students who did not or could not take advantage of the after school tutoring fee paying service?

Nancy - you’re mashing up what is being offered in Ottawa with a comment from Toronto. Essentially blurrring the lines and your points. Your questions doesn’t even correspond to the comment you selected.

The answer to your question could be answered either way to be honest.

“So will the teachers enter the private tutoring realm, using the public school facilities as their place of business to offer the extra-curricular activities for a fee, to replace the monies lost as it has been claimed by the unions, with the passing of Bill 115?”

Bill 115 is being repealed. This is not an issue.

I do know of teachers who tutor in their off-hours, who get paid under the table. That’s their choice in as much as it’s the choice of parents to use them or not.

Too many comments to reply to all, but…

Nancy, you say that “education stakeholders should be looking in the mirror, and see for yourselves the dismal future outcomes of students.” I’ve been teaching for almost 20 years, and along with the vast majority of my teaching colleagues, I try to be extremely professional, in the best sense of the word, in that I do hold myself accountable for my students’ achievement, or lack thereof.  I am constantly trying to develop my own competencies, while also using my accumulated experience and judgment to plan the best programs I can for my students. When a student is struggling, I try to help—- a complex task that requires knowing the student, identifying how and where I can adjust or improve my teaching so that s/he can succeed, and frequently working closely with parents to manage work and behaviour.  I am not always successful, which doesn’t mean I stop trying, or caring about the student.  Frankly, there are some things more important for your child’s well-being than marks, too, so for any of us to over-emphasize the marks is a grave mistake, as happens when some people look at standardized test results.  HOWEVER, when you refer to students’ dismal outcomes, her is what the OECD’s 2009 PISA study comparing test scores from countries all over the world had to say about Canadian reading skills: (http://www.cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/254/PISA2009-can-report.pdf)
: “Canadian students continue to perform well compared with students in most other countries. As shown in Chart 1.1, Canada had a mean score of 524 on the combined reading scale, well above the OECD average of 496 , and was outperformed by only 4 countries.” Alberta and Ontario led all other Canadian provinces in these scores. 

Tunya, I hope I didn’t offend you or anyone else with my “formal or official” tone.  Really I’m just choosing to write carefully and choose my words thoughtfully, and that has the effect of making me sound formal—but I’d be a lot happier if other people on all sides of the education discussion would do the same.  Everyone’s entitled to their opinion, but expressing opinions respectfully and listening to differing opinions, supported by facts, is something I believe in (Guess I DID drink the koolaid , huh?) This also means avoiding the “knee-jerk reactions” that Tunya mentions—easier said than done sometimes, I’ll grant you…

Tunya, perhaps it is true “Teacher unions are notorious for not wanting parents involved in choices for their children,” but I’m not so sure.  “Notorious”  is kind of a loaded word, suggesting something bad that just about everybody knows about, and perhaps the circles I move in are not the same as yours, but I don’t think there would be any kind of consensus about unions not wanting parents involved in their children’s education, including educational choices.  I’m truly not aware of my federation, ETFO, opposing such involvement but would be interested in hearing about this if it’s true.  My own experience is limited to individual teachers within the public system; those I know generally do their best to communicate and cooperate with parents who want to help the teacher tailor a program to suit their child’s needs… The limit to such involvement is reached when the parent wants something altogether different from what the system is designed or equipped to provide, in which case neither the teacher nor hes union can do much about it.  (…especially if we can’t even participate in collective bargaining!) 

You need to see teachers as allies (and in my experience most parents do) and see collective bargaining as a chance for teachers to have input in board and ministry decisions, to see that the loss of teachers’ bargaining rights is worrisome for education. 

And yes, I agree, that it is a parental duty to monitor a child’s progress – but cannot comment too much on your statement that making Progress Reports an item for job action is a disgrace and undermines this duty. As far as I am aware, every parent at my school who contacted a teacher for more information, after the last set of reports was sent home, received an opportunity to get more information, either in person or by phone or email.  As for calling my statements “patronizing”, and suggesting I expect you to be “grateful to the teacher unions for standing up “for the interests of their students”, I don’t expect gratitude for this since it’s part of what teachers are hired to do, and our federation does it too, though it has the added responsibility of standing up for the interests of teachers. 

Your language gets pretty abrasive when you say that teachers unions are “appropriating children and usurping parent rights”.  Perhaps you misunderstood me: I am not sure what the best word is to describe the child’s role in the classroom, but if we can both accept that the child is a “learner” and the adult is the “teacher”, then it’s clear that the one has a service to provide to the other, and that’s all I was referring to.  When I work with someone’s child, it is the child I am providing the service to in the classroom.  Does this mean I don’t have any relationship with or responsibility to the parents?  Clearly not. 

The parent-teacher relationship is a very important one. If a parent feels a teacher is usurping hes role, s/he has every right to discuss this with the teacher and/or administrator and seek some remedy.  Conversely, if the parent feels that the teacher is so incompetent that s/he has nothing to offer the child, s/he should do something about it, such as changing schools or home-schooling.  (Unions and school boards do occasionally BOTH have issues with parents who want to go beyond their rights by telling teachers how they should be doing their jobs – since, in the end, teachers are not employed by the parents, but by the school board, which is responsible to the Ministry of Education.  Is our job to give children the kind of “quality education” most parents want? Absolutely. However, are parents our bosses? Absolutely not.  …so let’s work together, shall we?  Believe it or not, most teachers want the best for their students, and emphatically do NOT want the parents’ role.

Jo-Anne, I’m not so sure that OECTA’s agreement isn’t harming students’ education.  Their school year has been trimmed by 3 “unpaid leave” days.  Will they miss those 3 days’ learning?  I can’t say for sure.  They have already had 2 of them, whereas we’ve only had one strike day, so if my math is right, our students have had one day more of school than the Catholics. 

The rest of your post mainly concerns kids who are not succeeding in the system, or have already graduated lacking important skills like reading. This is not quite the same thing as saying the system has failed them – but it’s pretty close.  The reasons this happens are many, but we do a disservice to everyone if we just blame it all on bad teachers and a screwed up school system.  It’s important to look closely at what teaching approaches might work better, and how the system can be more responsive to students’ needs, so that fewer kids fail.  But that’s a separate discussion, almost:  paying teachers less and removing their right to bargain will not fix these problems, but teachers who are acting to the best of their professional abilities when teaching and are involved in renewing and reforming the system from within just might… or at least might improve things. 

Chuck, I totally get what you’re saying and appreciate your open-hearted tone.  I’m under no illusion about the union leaders’ roles here, and they’re fundamentally different from mine.  I’ll grant that the discussions between teachers’ unions and ministry have been “all about the money”.  (This is a lot different from Malkin’s line that “All the unions want is more money and it will never be enough.”) And I don’t fundamentally have a problem with the gov’t saying “we have only X dollars to spend, and here’s how we see spending it”.  But they went much further than this. Maybe because they fundamentally distrust the boards’ and unions’ ability to keep costs within the ministry limits, they denied the actual negotiators – the boards and the unions – any ability to decide how the money gets allocated.  The government, suddenly trying to appear responsible after E-Health, Ornge Air and cancelled gas plants had cost taxpayers bajillions, promised to find “savings” in education.  Then, when Sam Hammond wants “flexibility to find savings” the Ministry refuses, just as they refused the OSSTF proposal that was no more more costly than the OECTA agreement (to the best of my knowledge). Ken Coran and many others have said that if the unions were just allowed to fine tune the government’s plan, without increasing the cost, they could have produced an agreement that worked for everyone AND there’d have been no constitutional challenge or withdrawn extra-curricular, and everyone could have saved face.  Now everyone looks bad, which can’t be good for education…

Sorry I wrote so much!

Ben Levin has said “look for falling test scores because unhappy teachers do not produce the best results.” This is their own former DM . I dont know if he is correct or not but it will be very interesting to see.

Is Mr. Levin suggesting that teachers will take it out on kids?

I would not say so in a direct way. He simply implies that happy teachers produce better educational achievement.

Unhappy teachers act like unhappy workers in any field. Productivity suffers.

This is silly, Joe, and it sounds like another threat by the poor, hard-done-by teachers.  Part of professionalism is to posses the willpower, toughness and dedication to put feelings aside and get on with the job.  Teachers have to learn that they can’t have it both ways…

Nothing silly about it. No need for the union to say anything or for any conspiracy to form. Workers of all types including teachers, doctors, engineers anyone are less productive when they feel abused. Your opinion does not matter it is simply a fact and enlightened employers will be happy to explain it to anyone.

Interesting post Malkin has today-I`ve been thinking the same thing as I posted earlier that Catholic Schools are a better option and a friend told me Chinese parents are even attending church to make usre their kids are in the Catholic system.
I hope John sees this-
It`s not about being 2 days or 3 days on strike-it`s about being more devoted to their students and not pulling clubs or sports from the school day-AND they do way better in EQAO scores.
They made a deal,respectfully negotiated and I applaud them.